What about, instead of a guideline for approximate PC abilities for a GM to work with, what if there were a follow-up to the Bestiary that had a page or half-page on how a given monster could be used, modified, equipped, or placed, and how it reacts to certain qualities in the GM's actual players?
That would be incredibly labor intensive for the Paizo team, but awesomely useful. So would a one-page chart of benchmark numbers for PCs.
Basically, we can empower GMs to make better use of their monsters, rather than create in them expectations of players. The latter seems to lead to disappointment for everyone.
I've never had that experience. In fact, quite the opposite.
Just look at all the threads on how the crafting feats break the WBL guidelines to see how strictly people will interpret such things.
Basically, we can empower GMs to make better use of their monsters, rather than create in them expectations of players. The latter seems to lead to disappointment for everyone.I've never had that experience. In fact, quite the opposite.
That's interesting, then. A number of GM frustrations that get posted to these and other boards essentially stem from the GM expecting certain things of the players that they don't want to do, won't do, or don't know that they are supposed to take care of on their end.
Design characters that sound interesting, with no regard for meta-game roles, as long as they "click" in a story sense and the personalities won't lead to PVP.
Taking skill and equipment choices to fit into the game world.
Keep out-of-game system knowledge from affecting a character's in-game choices.
"Build" a character for long-term success instead of choosing solely based on story direction.
Make character level-up choices based on story direction and personal character growth, with no regard for meta-game efficiency.
Work and cooperate with all party members, rationalizing choices that don't make obvious in-game sense, to prevent PVP.
Have an agreement on what the role of alignment is, and what each alignment means.
None of these are directly related to what I proposed, and are only somewhat related to what you posted. It could be argued that GMs and players should iron these things out before a game, and they should, but each is an expectation the GM has about the players.
I agree that having some sort of posted quantity to compare bonuses to could be a useful GM tool, but if the main reason you will use it is to adjust encounters, is there a way of doing that without creating the chance for inexperienced GMs to misunderstand that characters below an arbitrary benchmark are somehow bad?
Many would use such a benchmark the way it was intended here, but a vocal minority (which would grow larger with repetition) could use it to tell "underperforming" players (see, negative connotation) that they need to change their character to keep playing the game. Even if it's more work, I think it's a better approach and would only really lead to positive results.
|
I agree that having some sort of posted quantity to compare bonuses to could be a useful GM tool, but if the main reason you will use it is to adjust encounters, is there a way of doing that without creating the chance for inexperienced GMs to misunderstand that characters below an arbitrary benchmark are somehow bad?
... Even if it's more work, I think it's a better approach and would only really lead to positive results.
The Benchmark wouldn't be arbitrary though. You want some sort of consistent measurement of encounter difficulty, Ideally.
To do this you need some way to evaluate a character's effectiveness.
Now, does it need to be a set of "guideline numbers?" Maybe not. Maybe you can come up with some way to measure the character's effectiveness.
A way to measure it and measure the monsters' and compare them to determine more accurately if it's likely to be a hard fight or an easy one is a worthwhile endeavour, though figuring out how to approach such a beast is clearly not a simple thing to do.
Guideline numbers and ranges are probably the easiest way to do it. If you make it clear that the purpose is to guage how the party will fare against standard encounters so that you can adjust the encounters as needed, hopefully that vocal minority who dont bother reading the rules will get trounced by everyone else, who did read the rules, until people get how it works.
stuff
I am not over reacting. I am basically saying it won't really do much good. Tactics are more influential than number is basically what I was saying.
A book/booklet on how to counter tactics would be more useful than a guidelines on numbers.
|
|
I'm not saying tactics are irrelevant.
They most definitely matter.
A guide to effective tactics and counter-tactics would be a very helpful thing.
A guide for the GM to ramp up his tactical abilities to match the tactical abilities of his players, or for players to ramp up their tactical abilities to match their GM would be very handy.
But that doesn't mean that a guide to numbers is useless. A guide to numbers is also helpful, as are character building guides, or feat/spell selection guides.
They're all in the same general category of managing effectiveness on one side of the table or another.
All the tactics in the world aren't going to help the strength focused fighter who dumped dex and uses exotic thrown weapons, and put all of his feats into skill bonuses and other non-combat abilities. At the end of the day he's still going to suck.
Tactics aren't all that matters.
Character building/PC numbers aren't all that matters.
You need to pay attention to both, and evaluating both and presenting the evaluation in a useful way would help people play the types of games they want to play.
I agree that the numbers matter, but a guideline matters only as much as the numbers and player's abilities are close to the average.
If the numbers meet the standard, but the players keep using unexpected tactics the guideline won't help. <---I had to deal with that my first time GM'ing. Darn veteran players.
If a thing were to be printed a disclaimer should be put in saying these are only for average players. If your players are better than most players then do not expect this to hold up...
|
|
I agree that the numbers matter, but a guideline matters only as much as the numbers and player's abilities are close to the average.
If the numbers meet the standard, but the players keep using unexpected tactics the guideline won't help. <---I had to deal with that my first time GM'ing. Darn veteran players.
If a thing were to be printed a disclaimer should be put in saying these are only for average players. If your players are better than most players then do not expect this to hold up...
But tactics can be countered with other tactics. If the GM knows the system, he can play his NPCs the same way.
I've seen GMs take advantage of cover and abilities that synergize well and whatnot, and mop the floor of the PCs several levels higher. I recall a podcast of a dungeon with a floor of CR 1/4 Kobolds that almost TPKed a level 7 party due to guerilla tactics and system mastery by the GM.
So yeah. Tactics guides, Maybe a system to estimate the quality of player tactics, etc: all useful. But before you can estimate what's due to tactics and compensate for it, you need to have a reasonable baseline for the raw capabilities.
And I would say the easiest baseline would be when you have an encounter of your level actually taking up 1/4 of your resources; or conversely, when a similar monster to your character is about an even match for you. At least it would be consistent.
But yeah: Measuring character power is only half of the issue. -> That doesn't make it pointless or hopeless, but the other half of the puzzle isn't going away.
I am assuming you mean tucker kobolds. I have heard about that.
As to the number guide, I would still want a disclaimer to see those number are not official, just a measuring stick.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But tactics can be countered with other tactics. If the GM knows the system, he can play his NPCs the same way.
I had assumed you were recommending this crib sheet of guideline numbers for new GMs. If not, I'm not sure how much help it would really be over reading a Character Optimization guide and lowering the numbers 10-30%. Any veteran GM capable of countering tactics with tactics probably has enough of a grip on the system to determine when a party is working "at efficiency" or not.
For new GMs, a numbers sheet strikes me as likely to lull them into a false sense of security that the players are up for a given CR of challenge- and then the CR system's shortcomings reveal themselves, such as a Golem against a group of spellcasters, or a flying enemy against a melee- oriented party.
These two ideas though- character "target numbers" and monster "tactics tags"- sound like really good fan projects for people on this board. People are already rating spell choices for different classes and common adventuring equipment, and others have converted monsters into playable classes. Why not tag monsters with the various merits and flaws people have noticed?
If anyone's interested in constructive discussion, I've officially opened club GFASWL!
As to the number guide, I would still want a disclaimer to see those number are not official, just a measuring stick.
Fair enough. Unfortunately, I think all the nay-saying has killed of what little chance we had that someone at Paizo might actually share something on the topic.
That's interesting, then. A number of GM frustrations that get posted to these and other boards essentially stem from the GM expecting certain things of the players that they don't want to do, won't do, or don't know that they are supposed to take care of on their end.Basically, we can empower GMs to make better use of their monsters, rather than create in them expectations of players. The latter seems to lead to disappointment for everyone.I've never had that experience. In fact, quite the opposite.
It's amazing how many problems can be solved by simple communication. Communication between DM and players, and communication between the designers and the DM and the players. Communication is just generally good.
I agree that having some sort of posted quantity to compare bonuses to could be a useful GM tool, but if the main reason you will use it is to adjust encounters, is there a way of doing that without creating the chance for inexperienced GMs to misunderstand that characters below an arbitrary benchmark are somehow bad?
I like wraithstrike's surgeon general's warning idea, myself. There will still be people who don't read it, but it's something that can be pointed to.
I like wraithstrike's surgeon general's warning idea, myself. There will still be people who don't read it, but it's something that can be pointed to.
Rule 0 gets pointed to, as does the WBL being only a guideline. Disclaimers don't seem to hold any weight, which is sad.
Even this was something in plain text in the rulebook that nobody seems to know about. (The section "Misreading 3rd Edition," specifically the mention of the chart with a recommended spread of encounter CRs instead of a magical 4 a day.)
Rule 0 is often used incorrectly on the boards. It has come up in the rules forum when the official rules or at least intent is being discussed. It has come up when GM's have done things that are not popular, and so one.
As to WBL we know it is not a rule, but it is a standard for comparison for the purpose of debates so when someone gives their 4th level party 55000 gp worth of gear and wants to call Class X broken we can say "That is on you bro".
WBL is a guideline, but is not so loose as the magic item creation guidelines which is how I would want a number guide to be since creativiy would have a high impact on the latter two.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you find it, I'd be interested to hear what overall sort of numbers TB assumes. And if they talk about specific items or feats, even better!
I went ahead and pulled the file on Trailblazer. For the record, at only $5 its worth looking at just for some options and its breakdown of "the spine" of the game. As I don't like posting content for free that is typically charged for I'll give you a snapshot of what it is providing.
It breaks down the big 6 magic items that are required to maintain pace with monsters as characters advance. They are Magic Weapons, Magic Armor (including shields), Deflection bonus items (ring of Protection), Natural armor bonus items (Amulet of Natural armor), Stat boosters (Belt of giant strength), And resistance items such as cloak of protection.
It starts by going through a monster statistical analysis of monsters by CR. The designer measured the average of each of the following statistics: AC (avg), AC Trend (since the AC average isn't exactly 100% linear, its close but not exact, the trend table presents a more linear progression to measure the PC's against for benchmark testing), attack bonus, attack trend, Good Saves, Poor Saves, DC for abilities, and HD.
I'll show you where a CR 1, 10, and 20 monster stand:
CR; AC; AC trend; Attack; Attack trend; Poor Save; Good Save; DC; HD
1-- 15-- 14--------- 3------- 4-------------- 1------------- 4------------- 12-- 2
10- 21-- 22-------- 17------ 16------------- 7------------ 12------------ 19-- 13
20- 31-- 31-------- 31------ 29------------- 13----------- 19------------ 27- 22
There are multiple other tables laying out. PC attack vs Monster AC progression, Monster attack vs player character AC, Character spell DC vs monster Saves, and Characters saves vs monster DC.
On the PC tables they assume they assume a couple things about the PC's abilities. This is a snapshot, there are a few other things listed.
PC Level; Base Ability Score; Stat bonus; Total score; Magic Wpn bonus
1----------- 16---------------------- 0----------- 16------------- 0
10---------- 18--------------------- 2----------- 18------------- 3
20---------- 21--------------------- 6----------- 27------------- 5
Here is a page breaking down the designers conclusions and gives you insight to his thought process without giving away any specific changes presented in trailblazer :)
SPINE CONCLUSIONS
We believe that the data clearly challenges the conventional wisdom that all of the “Big Six” items are required for the PCs to keep pace with level appropriate challenges. We believe that the “optimal” success rate, one that is neither too easy nor too difficult, is somewhere around 70%.
Let’s review the Big Six, one at a time, against the data shown:
Weapon Enhancement
By 9th level, a character that is optimized as a striker will only miss the typical monster AC on a roll of natural 1. Without magical items—including both a magical weapon as well as a stat booster—his success rate drops to 75%. This success rate is still within our desired parameters; however, do note that although the character is still able to hit his foes, he will deal much less damage than the optimized striker. Note that the success rate actually increases as the PCs approach CR20, and does not begin to drop off until a few levels higher. In the absence of magic items, we have addressed this success rate in a couple of different ways.
First and foremost are action points, which can provide a bonus to your attack roll at key times.
Second, we have embraced the concept of the striker combat role. All characters whose primary function is to attack their foes in melee or ranged combat should have the base attack bonus to do so. To this end, both the monk and the rogue gain a bonus to their attack rolls—under certain thematic conditions—that brings their total attack bonus up to the same level as the primary fighting classes (barbarian, fighter, paladin, and ranger).
Third, we expect that all strikers will work much more closely together in a variety of ways. Tactical movement in combat is much easier to accomplish without provoking attacks of opportunity, allowing PCs to get into flanking positions; and the seldom used Aid Another was moved from an action(which required you to spend your own action merely to play second fiddle to another, presumably better, striker) to a combat reaction. As a combat reaction, Aid Another will see much more use. Altogether it should be almost trivial for strikers to find a total of +4 to hit in conditions that require it.
Armor Class
Magical armor and shield, deflection items, and natural armor items make up three of the Big Six (and by far the greatest portion by gold piece value). Note that the monster success rate for hits varies between 15% and 40% all the way through CR20; viewed from the players’ point of view, this gives them a rather satisfying success rate—“success” defined for the players as not getting hit—of about 70%.
Do note, however, that high level play should not really be defined by avoiding hits entirely; it is important that both the DM and the players understand and accept this concept. Rather, as level increases, the ability of monsters to hit the PCs (and vice versa) should be assumed, and the PCs should focus instead on ways to mitigate that assumed damage.
Nevertheless, there are some specific attacks that both the PCs and the DM will want to avoid. To this end, we have added
the Dodge combat reaction. This combat reaction allows the PC (or monster) to gain a dodge bonus to their armor class against
one attack. How is this best used? In the case of the PCs, clever players will save a dodge combat reaction to avoid those
attacks that carry significantly undesirable secondary effects. For example, dodging just one claw attack from a troll may save you from rend damage. Against a purple worm, a PC may decide to dodge either the bite (and swallow whole) or the sting (and the poison). From the DM’s side of the screen, having a dodge in your back pocket may allow your big bad evil guy to unexpectedly dodge an unpleasant ray or touch attack from the party wizard.
Stat Boosters vis-a-vis Player Character Spell DCs
Against a reasonably optimized PC spellcaster with a stat booster, the
monsters’ Good save hovers around 50% to 60% success rate all the way
through CR20. Against their Poor save, their success rate is usually 30%–35%—again, well within the 70% success rate from the PC’s perspective. A spellcaster without a stat booster is going to give up 1–3 points of DC, and so is certainly going to want to be sure of targeting a monster’s Poor saving throw. The party, in general, will also want to work together to decrease monster saves by any means possible. (Have you ever seen the party fighter intimidate an opponent in combat? Are your players aware that a shaken opponent takes a –2 penalty to saving throws?)
Player Character Saving Throws
Perhaps the biggest problem with saving throws is that, although the 65% to 70% success rate shown for Good saves (through CR20) is within our desired success rate, it’s not the saves you make that matter, it’s the saves that you fail. The Worst Case column is where the rubber hits the road for most players: This column assumes your Poor saving throw and, worse, that you don’t have any bonuses to improve it. This column starts at a 40% success rate and gets worse—much worse—from there.
The problem with ‘always on’ resistance bonuses, such as those provided by the ubiquitous cloak of resistance , is twofold. First, you can’t boost the Poor save to reasonable levels of success without also boosting the Good saves to unreasonable levels of success—that is, well above 70%. Second, PCs don’t generally require their saves to be good all the time; they can afford to fail a saving throw now and again. Unfortunately, what is most concerning to players are those times when they can’t afford to fail that one utterly catastrophic save.
Action Points were added to the Trailblazer ruleset first and foremost to shore up this potential for utterly catastrophic saving throws. We assume that saving throws that (a) target the worst
saving throw of (b) unequipped PCs with (c) utterly catastrophic consequences are the exception, not the rule—and that if circumstances prove otherwise, the primary responsibility for fixing this untenable
situation falls to the DM. Beyond that fail-safe, action points suffice.
There are two significant ways that action points aid in this regard. First, you can use an action point at the time of your first saving throw to add a bonus to your roll. Because of the particular mechanics that action points use (i.e. exploding dice) these boosts are significant. Should that saving throw fail, action points allow you to make a second save against many spells and effects.
Ultimately, unless the PC has exhausted his supply of action points, he should be well protected from unexpected, catastrophic saving throws. The DM should not look at such saving throws as a missed opportunity
to “nail” the PC; rather, he should understand that the purpose of such saving throws is to allow the PCs to advance successfully while at the same time depleting them of action points. The slow but inevitable loss of action points ratchets up the tension in exactly the same fashion as dwindling hit points.
They go on to discuss magic treasure allocation, how to allocate treasure if you want a low magic campaign where you eliminate the reliance on the big six. Then their own feats and class rebalancing, remember that this book was written at the same time pathfinder was being developed so they were presented their version of how to fix 3e. I'd suggest buying it. Its cheap, and I think it has all the info your asking for.